Squawks in Port 7879 output

[DaveReid]

I thought these had been fixed in the V3 beta?

If so, why am I seeing examples like the following:

<MODESMESSAGE>
  <DATETIME>20091020081129</DATETIME>
  <MODES>AA8882</MODES>
  <CALLSIGN>UAL924</CALLSIGN>
  <ALTITUDE>06795</ALTITUDE>
  <VRATE>-960</VRATE>
  <AIRSPEED>242.0</AIRSPEED>
  <LATITUDE>51.4117</LATITUDE>
  <LONGITUDE>-0.7840</LONGITUDE>
  <SQUAWK>242.0</SQUAWK>
</MODESMESSAGE>
<MODESMESSAGE>
  <DATETIME>20091020081129</DATETIME>
  <MODES>AA92FA</MODES>
  <CALLSIGN>COA4</CALLSIGN>
  <ALTITUDE>04770</ALTITUDE>
  <VRATE>-704</VRATE>
  <AIRSPEED>198.0</AIRSPEED>
  <LATITUDE>51.4090</LATITUDE>
  <LONGITUDE>-0.8696</LONGITUDE>
  <SQUAWK>198.0</SQUAWK>
</MODESMESSAGE>

Values should be 7741 for UAL924 and 7304 for COA4.

[Andy Frost]

All mine are 000 with 3.07 Beta.

<MODESMESSAGE>
  <DATETIME>20091020094653</DATETIME>
  <MODES>A3D75C</MODES>
  <CALLSIGN>AAL55</CALLSIGN>
  <ALTITUDE>08025</ALTITUDE>
  <GROUNDSPEED>334</GROUNDSPEED>
  <TRACK>282</TRACK>
  <VRATE>1024</VRATE>
  <AIRSPEED>000</AIRSPEED>
  <LATITUDE>53.4739</LATITUDE>
  <LONGITUDE>-2.4591</LONGITUDE>
  <SQUAWK>000</SQUAWK>
</MODESMESSAGE>

AAL55 was squawking 7415 as it left Manchester this morning.

[Fenris]

Looks like an indexing error where the squawk field is actually filled with the airspeed value.

Probably best to post this is the 3.07 beta thread.

[DaveReid]

Looks like an indexing error where the squawk field is actually filled with the airspeed value.

Yes, I hadn't twigged that, but looking closer at my log it appears that aircraft sending airspeed (about 10% of my sample) have the TAS repeated in the squawk field, whereas aircraft that send GS rather than airspeed show "000" as the squawk.

How come that one got past all the beta-testers ?

[tarbat]

How come that one got past all the beta-testers ?

It didn't.

[DaveReid]

How come that one got past all the beta-testers ?

It didn't.

OK, I stand corrected - my question should have been how come it didn't make it onto the published outstanding bug list  :-)

[Fenris]

How come that one got past all the beta-testers ?

It didn't.

OK, I stand corrected - my question should have been how come it didn't make it onto the published outstanding bug list  :-)

Because the bug list only gets updated when Airnav take the time to do it, whereas if they had a public bug tracker we would all be able to see the bugs, and probably search on open bugs.

[AirNav Support]

We did have one, we promise for future versions it will be back.

[tarbat]

We did have one, we promise for future versions it will be back.

Ah, that would explain why bug reports aren't being updated then!!  For example, the alert on squawk bug.

[Fenris]

We did have one, we promise for future versions it will be back.

Excellent, it will make everyone's life easier.

[AirNav Development]

The squawk problem is now corrected for V3.08.